From: e.karloukovski@uea.ac.uk (Vassil Karloukovski)
Subject: Re: Caucasoid Turks/Bulgars
Date: 10 Apr 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <7enbsd$cm7@cpca3.uea.ac.uk>
References: <369E3BE1.5C45@sbu.ac.uk> <77li2j$qi0$1@whisper.globalserve.net> <369F52FE.2B6@sbu.ac.uk> <77rc86$auj$1@brokaw.wa.com> <36A444B3.F3B70F1C@alum.mit.edu.-> <7827sb$269$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <36A52D70.9E372DD2@alum.mit.edu.-> <36A556AB.9927BD29@montclair.edu> <36a63533.58309714@news.yale.edu> <7866ud$i9m$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <36cdb21e.883120019@news.wxs.nl> <36A7FCC8.79790A6B@earthlink.net> <36d77e23.1000882888@news.wxs.nl> <36a8d455.81661202@news.yale.edu> <78pl3c$84o@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <36b0dc2f.3434839@news.yale.edu> <78v30o$vl6@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <36b34d7c.60430113@news.yale.edu> <794e84$4iq@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <3744d12a.1873763068@news.wxs.nl> <796m95$eq2@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <375c0ea6.1954957123@news.wxs.nl> <79fo99$qkl@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <370e76ba.60158954@news.yale.edu>
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII
Organization: University of East Anglia, Norwich, U.K.
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,sci.anthropology,sci.lang
In article <370e76ba.60158954@news.yale.edu>, cluster.user@yale.edu says...
...
>>>on the other hand, the known handful of khazar words are turkic.
>>>moreover, a section of the khazars and onoghurs established
>>>dominion over the magyars and brought about a bilinguilaism
>>>(this is recorded). we know their language from the considerable
>>>loans in hungarian - not identifiable with either qypchaq or
>>>ottoman turkish - but showing great similarity to volghabulghar
>>>and chuvash.
>>dobrev hasn't satisfactoraly answered this point.
he hasn't touched this question, only these eastern-iranian words in mari
as well as some south siberian remains in chuvash, mari, hungarian.
>>>it is pointless to speculate what is meant by this, as it is now well
>>>established what the situation was for this time. for the 13th
>>>century there was the indiginous (at least relatively speaking)
>>>volgabulghar, -r turkic speaking population
fine, but what this XIII c. indigenous r-turkic on Volga has to do with
the V-IX cc. bulgar?
>>this is another point not addressed to by dobrev. nor is their any
>>record of a dramatic linguistic shift of volghabulgars from an iranian
>>or other language to -r turkic.
neither is there any record of a dramatic shift from bulgar to slavic
from the Balkans.
>>and there was -r turkic speech, with chuvash charcteristics, at this
>>end as well, as evidenced from hungarian.
there still remains to be proven r-turkic was brought exactly by the
bulgars and not by the accompanying them tribes - the Suvars/Chuvash
(the Sabirs of southern Russia, Siberia), the Barsils/Bersula, the
Essegels (also found in Hungary/Transylvania), the Burtas, etc.
>>yet no mention of the alans and As (speaking an east iranian lanugae
>>and presumabely close to that of dobrev's iranic bulghars) . these
>>people the arabs had heard of.
>
>I would like to know what dobrev's answers to these points are.
Yes, it would be probably helpful to compare the arabic accounts of the
alans and the bulgars. Dobrev hasn't treated this question. BTW, the
arab accounts in my previous post were from one book of Atanas Stamatov.
VK